My Media Consumption Habits

 Today we'll be taking a look at my media consumption from Friday, June 3rd and put some thought into the type of media I consume, as well as how and when I consume.

6:00 A.M. - 9:00 A.M.

    1 hour of audio

    1 hour online

9:00 A.M. - Noon

    2 hours of print

    2 hours of audio

    1 hour of electronic

Noon - 6:00 P.M.

    30 minutes of print

    6.5 hours of audio

    1 hour of electronic

    15 minutes online

6:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M.

    2 hours of audio

    4 hours online

10:00 P.M. - Sleep

    1 hour of audio

    1.5 hours electronic

    3.5 hours online

Totaled up, this equals about 1,635 minutes, or 27 hours 15 minutes of media. This is just shy of my estimate of 30 hours, though I expect that 30 hours is actually a low estimate for a typical day for me. On the day that these numbers were recorded, I fell asleep not long after getting home. During my time of rest, I consumed no media. On an average day, I would not fall asleep and would instead continue to consume media. I also suspect that I would spend much more time online during a regular day. This is especially true on a Friday, as I usually stream on Twitch on Fridays instead of falling asleep.

With the aforementioned nap in mind, these results honestly don't really surprise me. I suspected that audio would by far be my greatest intake, as I have music on quietly for most of the day. Especially to be noted is the noon - 6:00 period, where I actually managed to listen to 6.5 hours of audio, because both the car radio and my headphones were on during the drive home. My multitasking habits are by no means only with audio, either. I will almost always be consuming at least 2 types of media, often a videogame and a podcast or YouTube video. 

I'm not sure whether to classify my consumption as user created or mainstream overall. That would really depend on how videogames are classified, and if there is a distinction between AAA games and indie games. If indie games are classified as user generated, then those alongside my YouTube consumption would be enough to push me into the user generated category, otherwise I fit into the mainstream category.

I tend to be always on. I don't really make an effort to limit my media consumption, as unless I have other things I should be doing I don't really see it as too harmful. Whether it is actually harmful or not is another question entirely. Let's review the common long term effects of media, and discuss how those have affected me personally.

    1. Generalizing: If I'm honest, I probably have been affected by this one in some regards. I am likely predisposed to question the intelligence of people who struggle to understand technology. In fact, I recall telling people to "just read the screen", without thinking that they may not understand the terms on the screen that have become second nature for me to understand. There are likely other generalizations I make that I don't even recognize, but this is the most apparent.

    2. Triggering: I think I've managed to avoid this one almost entirely. There is nobody who I follow online that I really aspire to be like, and I'm pretty happy with who I am in general. I think this one is more a product of sites like Twitter and Instagram, which I don't interact with nearly as much as I do sites like Twitch or YouTube.

    3. Malformed Super-Ego: I don't think this applies to me? Or maybe that's just my super-ego telling me I'm too perfect to have such a problem. Jokes aside, I don't think this is the case for me. Usually I try to understand when people are struggling and see if there's anything I can do to help, and when somebody knows more than me I take it as an opportunity to learn rather than getting a bruised ego.

    4. FOMO: I don't really feel a compulsion to interact online, either. If I were able to stock up on books beforehand, I could easily go a few days or a couple weeks without my phone and be just fine. The only time I really feel a compulsion to be online is to talk to my partner, though I don't think that's because of a fear of missing out.

    5. Addiction: If I'm honest, then yeah this is probably the one that gets me. I tend to spend more time gaming than I probably should. Classifying addiction is always difficult though, as it doesn't really get in the way of other aspects of my life. But then, that also just sounds like I'm trying to justify an addiction, doesn't it?

    6. Cultivation of fear: Nope. I don't really pay attention to any news, I don't see anything particularly violent.

    7. Training: I don't have many strong opinions on much of anything, so I'm not sure I could end up in an echo chamber sort of situation to begin with? I suppose this likely affects me in ways I haven't even thought of, though.

    8. Learning Social Norms: This probably applies to me in some sense, but not in regards to overestimating crime rates. Likely, I just expect people to act more like they do online, which may well be why I think that the average person isn't very smart.

Scooby Doo Media Literacy Assessment

 1. What assumption or beliefs do Scooby Doo's creators have that are reflected in the content

    The stereotypes and tropes of the characters are clear assumptions that likely were not even conscious decisions to write into the characters. For example, Velma is the nerdy one, and so she wears glasses, acts shy, and is less traditionally "attractive" than Daphne. Fred is strong, tall, and able bodied and so he often takes charge as the perceived leader of the group.

  and 2. how does this make you feel, based on how similar or different you are from the people portrayed in the media product?

    Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a more diverse cast, but I'm also of the mind that it doesn't really matter whether or not they change the cast now. Often times representation is best left subtle rather than building the whole character around being different from the rest of the group. If they were to change the characters now, I feel like they'd end up making it over the top and doing more harm than good for the communities they try to represent. This isn't to say that representation shouldn't be included in children's shows, but rather to say that characters should be introduced in the future to assist. To be fair to the writers though, the more recent Scooby Doos do a bit of a better job of trying to lean away from these stereotypes more by presenting the characters a little differently. This is especially true with the new Velma series coming out, where she will be of South Asian descent. 

3. how does the commercial purpose of Scooby Doo influence the content and how it is presented?

    The commercial nature of Scooby Doo means that the crime in the show as well as some aspects of the characters need to be presented a little differently to be "suitable" for an audience of children. The crimes must not be violent and are to be referred to only as mysteries. Velma has to stay comfortably in the closet. Shaggy obviously cannot openly be labelled as a stoner, and his edibles are to be referred to as scooby snacks (this one is reasonable, to be fair.) This results in any ideas that the writers have that are deemed unsuitable to children being written in codes and undertones more often than being outright removed from the show.

4. Who and what is shown in a positive light? in a negative light? why might these people and things be shown this way?

    Any time that a character isn't white, they're a villain or a heavy stereotype. This is especially true in older Scooby Doos. This reflects the general views of the time and honestly may not have even been a conscious decision from the writers at the time.

5. Who and what is not shown at all, and what conclusions might be drawn from these ommisions?

    Simply put, every main character of Scooby Doo is white, middle class, and able bodied. This could lead to audiences, and especially children, assuming that only people who meet this description are capable of the "heroic" acts seen in the show. This may also result in children who don't identify with these characters feeling alienated as they watch.

6. How does scooby doo explain crime and gender roles to young people?

    Scooby Doo aims to make crime understandable and undesirable to young audiences. This is achieved by ensuring that the crime is always solved and the motive is understood. By doing this, they show young audiences that crime can be understood if thought is put into it. They also make crime undesirable by showing children that there are punishments for crimes. As for gender roles, they are both taught and questioned in Scooby Doo. These are mainly apparent in the characters Fred and Daphne. Fred is very protective of Daphne, often saving her and being quite controlling of her, which is very stereotypical. As for Daphne, she cares deeply about her appearance and reputation, while somewhat lacking in the intelligence department. This was especially the case in older Scooby Doo shows, and the new ones do make some effort to do a better job of questioning gender roles, such as in the episode we were shown in class wherein Daphne has a beard and mustache.

Ethics and Functions of Corporations

 Today we'll be having a look at the following questions about corporations, and more specifically the film "The Corporation": 1. Is it fair to blame a single executive for the activities of a company that has thousands of employees?

2. Can Corporations Commit Murder? If a corporation is considered as a person in law (as it is in the US) who can be held liable (responsible) if a corporation kills people?  

3. Recall 10 or more brands, their logos, their jingles, slogans, and any memory of the product (think Nike = swoosh = "just do it"). Do you know who owns the brand? What is your perception of this "brand"?

4. The documentary raises important questions about ethics and personal responsibility. One of the fundamental messages in the film is that corporations are irresponsible because in an attempt to satisfy corporate goals, everyone else is put at risk. To what extent is a person responsible for what they do even when within a company? Is a person morally culpable for their actions when satisfying the goal of profit within a corporation? Why or why not?

1. I do not think it is entirely fair to blame an executive or CEO for the actions of their employees. There will always be bad actors within any group, and a CEO with thousands of employees cannot possibly know everything that is happening within their company at any given time. However, the CEO should be held responsible for the general "direction" of their company, and its practices on a broader scale. A CEO shouldn't necessarily be responsible for the individual acts of their employees when their employees are acting in a way that they were not instructed to, but should be responsible for insuring their employees are instructed to act ethically.

2. I don't think a corporation can commit murder. While a corporation is recognized under the law as an individual, it is well understood that there is a limit on the "personhood" of a corporation. A corporation as its own entity cannot physically directly murder somebody, and as such the individuals within the corporation committing the act on behalf of the corporation should be charged with the crime. 

3. I will format my answers as follows: Brand name, Logo description with hyperlink, Notable advertising such as jingles and slogans, [first ideas that come to mind.]

    1.Tesla, Red T Logo, "To accelerate the advent of sustainable transport and electric technology" (what a terrible slogan. That's more of a mission statement than a catchy piece of advertising), [very formal and modern, wealthy and sleek.], This brand is owned by Elon Musk.

    2. Amazon, A - Z logo, "Work hard. Have fun. Make history." (A little better than tesla's I guess), [Relaxed and convenient, fast and affordable], This brand is owned by Jeff Bezos.

    3. FedEx, Blue and orange logo that is quite literally just the word FedEx, "The world on time." (much better, thank you FedEx.), [Hard working, Fast and Efficient, Reliable], I would have to use google to tell you that this brand is owned by Frederick W. Smith.

    4. Google, Multicoloured G Logo, "Do the right thing." (What? What does that have to do with a search engine? Good advice but what are you selling?) , [Instant, All knowing, Helpful, Intimidating, Coldhearted(?)], I had to google (ironic) to inform you that this brand is owned by Sundar Pichai.

    5. YouTube, play button logo, "Broadcast yourself." (Simple enough. That is the point of the website.), [Welcoming, Smart, Funny, Communal, Popular], This brand is owned by Susan Wojcicki.

    6. Twitch, speech bubble logo, "You're already one of us." (Sounds a bit like a cult but it is fairly welcoming.), [Welcoming, Energetic, Communal, Entertaining, Thrillseeking], This brand is owned by Emmett Shear, though Twitch itself is a property of Amazon.

    7. Steam, locomotive part logo, no slogan, [Faceless, high tech], This brand is owned by Gabe Newell.

    8. Aliexpress, shopping bag logo, "Smarter shopping, better living!" (Eh. Pretty average.), [Cheap, Slightly Untrustworthy, Slow, Entertaining, Oversaturated.], I had to google to tell you that this brand is owned by Jack Ma.

    9. Digikey, Digikey electronics logo, no slogan, [Very reliable, fairly priced, industrial, high quality, fast, effective], had to google to say Ronald Stordahl.

    10. Twitter, blue bird logo, no slogan though "It's what's happening" is a common tagline in ads. (Kind of pretentious, don't you think?), [Oversaturated, Energetic, Problematic, Loud, Social], this brand is currently owned by Parag Agrawal, though is apparently soon to be acquired by Elon Musk.

4. A lot of the time, people likely don't fully grasp their role in the destructive nature of the corporation they work for. If you're a cashier at McDonalds, you probably won't think much of your responsibility for the environmental damage caused by the overgrazing and gas emissions of the cattle farmed to make the burgers you're selling. The idea of moral culpability for actions within a corporation is a very morally grey area, and the answer to this question will vary drastically depending on who you ask. It is hard to recognize one's own actions as immoral within a corporation when the actions that each individual is performing separately are seemingly regular, and only when the effects of each individual's actions on a broader scale are observed together is a problem apparent. One cannot be fully responsible for actions they don't understand.

What Makes for a Good Burglar?

 While most people may think of smash and grab type crimes when they hear the term burglar, the truth is that there are some burglars who are highly skilled, and know how to get what they want without leaving a trace. These types of burglars are professionals. They make their livings from stealing, and know where to look for high value items that they can get their hands on. Today we'll be looking at the traits of a good burglar, how somebody develops into a good burglar, and how their "careers" compare to more traditional ones.

A good burglar needs a wide set of basic skills, and usually one specialty skill that they dedicate their time to honing. In general, a good burglar needs to be alert. A professional will be aware of their surroundings at all times so as to avoid detection. A professional must also have sufficient critical thinking and planning skills. This is what separates professionals most from amateurs. A professional will scope out targets and compare the perceived risk/reward, and make a specific plan to break in and get what they want out before doing anything. A good burglar must also have good communication skills, for a multitude of reasons. This is a trait that most people may not think of, but it is actually crucial. First of all, since these burglars make a living off of stealing, they will need somebody to buy their stolen goods either knowingly or unknowingly. Either way, they will need good communication skills to either keep good relations with their fences or convince their fences to buy off of them. Good burglars will also work in groups. This is where the specialized skills come in, as one may be great at scoping out sites and planning a route, while another may specialize in bypassing security systems, another in moving heavy objects quickly, etc. Because they work in teams, they need to have good communication skills and integrity. Finally, a good burglar needs to know how to avoid a sentence. The best burglars know how to avoid the police knowing that they're there, the response time for when the police do find out, and how to get out without leaving any links to themselves. In the event that they do get caught, they know their way around the legal system well enough to ensure the least severe sentence for themselves.

The theory that describes the process of becoming a good burglar best has got to be differential association. Because good burglars start out with no burgling skills and need to know how to work in a group, it makes perfect sense that good burglars will have learned from and worked with more experienced burglars in their early careers. This has often been observed to be the case. This is exactly what differential association describes, which is crime being learned through interaction with antisocial peers. 

Finally, let's compare the career path of a professional burglar to more acceptable professions such as lawyers and doctors. Generally professionals in standard fields will have considerably more formal education than professional burglars. While doctors and lawyers are spending their time at university, burglars are spending time in the field learning from other burglars. In general, the basic skills that professional thieves and standard professionals use are actually quite similar. Most jobs will need the same problem solving and communication / group work skills that make for successful professional burglars. Where they differ substantially is in their purpose. Most career paths are designed for helping others in some way. Engineers help by supplying structures, doctors look after health, lawyers ensure protection under the law, police ensure security, etc. Burglary is different because it only helps the burglar and their ring while actively hindering victims and law enforcement. There are more similarities between burglars and standard professionals than most people would likely expect, but they are still fundamentally different.

IN CONCLUSION: A good burglar will know how to work with others to avoid getting caught while securing the highest value items and selling them off. They will have learned from other burglars, likely family or friends, and will almost certainly have started from a young age. They are similar to more standard professionals in the set of basic skills that they use, but differ fundamentally in their intent.

Auto Theft

 Today we're gonna have ourselves a quick little look at auto theft in Canada. We'll be looking at why people steal cars, what type of cars they steal, where they're getting the cars they steal and the rates at which cars are actually stolen.

First off, there are 5 main reasons as to why people commit auto theft. This and this website both suggest a very similar set of reasons. The reasons are as follows: 1. For joyrides. 2. for personal use. 3. to be used in other crimes. 4. to be chopped for parts that can be sold off. and 5. to be sold intact. As we can see, 3 or 4 of the 5 reasons are instrumental, meaning that auto theft is usually for profit. 

In Canada, most cars are stolen in Alberta, with 536 auto thefts per 100,000 population in 2016. Alberta had 22,801 auto thefts. This is substantially more than Ontario's 17,223, especially considering that Ontario has a rate of 123 auto thefts per 100,000 population.

The type of vehicle most commonly stolen vehicle across Canada was a 2018 Honda CR-V. However, in Alberta where the most auto thefts occur, 8/10 vehicles in the top 10 stolen list were ford trucks, with the number 1 being a Ford F350. Vehicles that are stolen often tend to be vehicles that are very popular. This is because they will be far less noticeable in a crowd of other vehicles, and the parts are guaranteed to be in high demand.

So if you want to avoid your car being stolen, there are a few steps you can take. 1. The first and easiest step is to turn off and lock your vehicle when it's not in use (obviously, I hope). 2. The next is to make sure that valuables in your car are placed out of sight when you are not in your car. This one moreso applies to avoiding breaking and entering, but is still an easy step to avoid being stolen from. 3. Make your car identifiable. In the event that your car is stolen, identifiable such as bumper stickers, or even having your VIN etched visibly on the vehicle will make identifying and recovering your vehicle far easier. Not only will this step make recovery easier, but it will also make your car less attractive to smarter thieves. 4. Anti theft devices such as vehicle immobilizers and steering wheel locks can make your car substantially more difficult to steal. Thieves will likely leave you alone when there are easier marks all around them. 5. Park in a garage. If you have one available, parking in a garage puts your vehicle out of sight and makes it more difficult to get to unnoticed. Using these 5 steps should ensure that your vehicle isn't stolen, and if it is you will have a much easier time finding and retrieving it.

In conclusion, auto theft is usually for profit, though occasionally for pleasure. If you don't want your car to be stolen, don't drive a ford in Alberta. If you're intent on driving a ford in Alberta, put some stickers on it, park it in a garage, lock it when you're not using it, and maybe consider some anti theft devices.

Serial and mass murderers

 This week we will be taking a look at examples of serial and mass murderers. We'll be taking a look at what they did, why they did it, and how authorities could have handled things differently. We'll also be taking a look at where they fit into Levin & Fox's typology to help us understand what they were thinking.

Clifford Robert Olson Jr. was a serial child murderer active from 1980 - 1981 in B.C. He was born January 1st of 1940, and died in prison on October 2nd of 2011. In short, Clifford Olson killed several children brutally, and got paid a generous sum to prove that he did it. To do this, he took advantage of the lack of a firm connection between police forces in different municipalities. News travelled slowly and police from different towns didn't have the technology established to work well together. Olson would select his victims by looking for naive youth looking to make some money. He would hand them a high quality business card for a construction company, and convince them to go with him for a brief interview at the construction site. When they obliged, he would give them a sip of a spiked drink to knock them out. Once they were unconscious, he would take them to where he would be disposing of the body, which was usually a swamp or quarry. He was rather sadistic in his killings, using cruel methods that I'll spare you the details of and taking great pleasure in watching how children die. He also fantasized about gaining notoriety, daydreaming of the name "silver hammer man" in headlines.

Once Olson was eventually detained, the police couldn't actually find enough evidence to convict him of all of his murders. Olson knew this, and offered them a deal he knew they couldn't refuse. He offered to give them the locations and details of 11 bodies for 100,000 dollars (about $347,000 today). They obliged and after this deal was carried through, he offered another similar deal which was refused.

Now that we know what Olson did, how he did it, and how he acted afterward, we should be able to get a pretty good idea of which typology he fits into. Of the main types, I would say Olson fits quite well into the hedonistic thrill killer category, perhaps with some power/control mixed in. Olson is noted to have taken great pleasure in watching the process that children go through when they die, describing both the pleasure and the process in great detail during psychiatric assessments. The sadistic nature of his methods -- as well as the prolonged nature of some of them -- fit rather perfectly into this category. The reason I also suggest power/control as a category for this killer is due to the planned nature of his killings, as well as his dreams of infamy. Power/control killers are also known to kill rather sadistically and prolong the death of their victims. These types of killers also often leave behind little to no evidence, which fits Olson perfectly. In addition, if he were killing for a sense of control, this could explain why he chose children as his victims. Children would be easier to overpower both mentally and physically, and may give more satisfaction to the killer with less effort put in.

In the case of Olson, he would have been caught significantly sooner if there was better communication between different RCMP detachments, which is thankfully something we have now. In addition, he really should have been watched closer, as he had been in prison for most of his life since the age of 17.

Now that we've looked at the serial murderer Clifford Olson, let's take a look at the mass murderer Marc Lepine. Lepine was born October 26th of 1964. He was also a mass murderer who targeted women, killing 14 and wounding 10 on December 6th of 1989. This event took place at École Polytechnique in  Montreal. After moving throughout various rooms of the building shooting women, he shot and killed himself. Luckily for us he carried a suicide note on him that explains his motives. Lepine was a noted incel (short for "involuntary celibate") and misogynist. He blamed feminism for ruining his life, and looked down on women in traditionally male fields of work or study. In his suicide note he claims "feminists have always enraged me. They want to keep the advantages of women (e.g. cheaper insurance, extended maternity leave preceded by a preventative leave, etc.) while seizing for themselves those of men." He also claims that his actions were for political reasons, and that he was fighting feminism as a whole.

These are the actions of a mission-oriented killer for sure. The goal of this type of killer is almost always to rid society of a certain type of people. In Marc Lepine's case, the type was feminists. He targeted feminists due to his past experiences with women, as well as potentially due to his abusive father leaving a lasting impression of violence towards women on him. He chose the École Polytechnique specifically because he had is application denied in the past, and looked down on women pursuing education in "masculine" fields.

In this case, stricter gun laws may have prevented this. It's hard to say what else could have realistically been done to prevent Lepine's actions.

Hypermasculinity & Sexual Assault

 Today we'll be having a look at the following questions: "Explain how sexual behaviour could be socialized in males. Do you think that males who commit sexual assault are "hyper-masculine"? Why and where do men learn "hyper-masculine" behaviour?" These questions are a little more open-ended than some of the other questions we've had a look at, so I'll answer more with my own experiences and things I've seen or heard other people experience, rather than my usual online sources. Note that my thoughts and opinions are being formed just after reading this, this, and this article.

Sexual behaviour is socialized in males by their peers and the media they consume. Boys develop their "sexual attitude" based on how they hear the people around them talk about sex. If, for instance, a guy hears his friends talking about sexually aggressive behaviour and listens to music that promotes sexual aggression, he will likely adopt those beliefs himself and may be more likely to commit a sexual assault. On the other hand, if he were to receive a proper sex education and surround himself with people who are less sexually aggressive, he will likely have a more respectful and realistic view on sex.

I feel the next question is a little too boolean. I think that some males who commit sexual assault are hypermasculine. The term hypermasculine is defined as "the exaggeration of male stereotypical behavior, such as an emphasis on physical strength, aggression, and sexuality." Think of behaviours and activities that are commonly deemed "manly" or "macho" for a good example of hypermasculinity. Hypermasculinity can definitely play a part in sexual assault for a few reasons. If a man believes that sexually assaulting a woman would prove him to be stronger and gain admiration from his peers, he may be more likely to do so. Even if he doesn't care what his peers think, he may commit sexual assault to reaffirm his own "manliness" or masculinity to himself. 

Hypermasculinity can begin to develop as early as early childhood. Boys who are more aggressive as children may often learn that aggressive behaviour is more likely to get them what they want in the short term. This behaviour is further promoted throughout developmental years by advertising and other media. I would presume that advertising for men's products has a particularly strong influence, as there have been some fairly "questionable" widespread ads. The introduction of this paper alone does a great job of demonstrating that nearly everybody has a pretty similar of what a "real man" looks like, and so this expectation demonstrates and promotes hypermasculinity.

Now that we've had a look at hypermasculinity and sexual assault, let's see if we can't find the motive behind and an actual sexual assault. This news article from Global News reports a groping at Lynn Canyon. Because this was just a groping and not a full-on rape, it's unlikely that the motivation was sexual. Reportedly, the perpetrator walked away laughing, suggesting that he thought this behaviour was funny and okay. Thinking this behaviour is funny could suggest hypermasculinity. He clearly doesn't think that this behaviour is as harmful as it is, or doesn't really care, which is likely indicative of the kinds of people he is surrounded by and the media he consumes. The motivation was just for a bit of fun for the perpetrator, because he has been influenced to believe that minor sexual assaults are funny and may even find amusement in doing something illegal and unethical.